A values‐based process for cross‐cultural dialogue between scientists and Māori

Abstract

Abstract Cross‐cultural dialogue is an essential part of the evaluation of controversial technologies and research proposals of significance to indigenous peoples. If Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand are to benefit from these technologies it is important that effective processes are developed and implemented to ensure enduring outcomes for their communities. We describe a deliberate, multi‐stage process to facilitate cross‐cultural dialogue that starts well before research applications are submitted to funding and/or regulatory agencies. The process begins with provision of “toolkits” to both the research provider and the Māori entities, which allows both to be better prepared to engage in constructive dialogue with each other concerning the proposal and its intended outcomes. The process allows for the evaluation of technologies and modification of research proposals by Māori to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. It also recognises that non‐Māori scientists are often willing to participate but may feel apprehensive because of unfamiliarity with the language, protocols and values. The process suggests the use of a Māori intermediary/ies (MIs) to assist scientists with re‐evaluation of their proposals prior to the actual dialogue phase, and facilitate the interaction between the dialogue partners. The process accommodates a range of possible outcomes from the dialogue phase, and subsequent monitoring of outcomes from the research by both parties. We also demonstrate application of the process with a case study based on recent experiences from a field trial of genetically modified Pinus radiata D.Don. It is anticipated that adoption of this values‐based process by scientists and scientific organisations will result in the transformation of science praxis, the creation of long‐term relationships between scientists and Māori, and mutually beneficial outcomes for both.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.